Chelsea spent more than that last summer, are you expecting their treble anytime soon?
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
Nobody has said that spending money well isn't important to winning. It's obviously very important. As I already said, it is not only true for Guardiola, it's true for just about any good manager on the highest level in the past 20 years.
Let me ask you this: do you see a difference in how City play before and after the arrival of Guardiola? Have you seen any general improvement in results since his arrival? Because as far as I can see Guardiola has his team playing differently than Pellegrini and has had far more consistent results during his years. Both Mancini and Pellegrini spent incredible money but never achieved to be as dominant as Guardiola. Could it have a bit to do with Guardiola himself maybe?
Again, This is the same shit from the pep defenders as usual. Just because money spent badly doesn't help, doesn't mean money spent well isn't an enormous advantage
Yes there's a big improvement, with a billion spent and a much better manager it would be shocking if they hadn't. But having city playing better after a billion spent is not the same as being the greatest of all time, particularly when there's another manager in the same league who's spent far less and basically matched your team during that period. Yes they've won 4 less league titles, but two of those were by a single point, which I think for about 400m less spent is kinda fair enough
The problem with your argument is that you barely seem to be aware of what it is.
You are not actually talking about money. You are talking about having good players and using 'money' as a proxy for their quality.
Nobody, anywhere, would deny that good players are required for consistent success.
You keep talking about "x money spent" in a way that conveys to everyone that you mean brute force spending. When people correctly point out this makes no sense, you go "oh wait I actually mean Manchester City's scouting structure." It's disingenuous.
Last edited:
Comparative to the level of opposition they were up against.
Its the context yeah. Inter was a huge club before Seria A became a shadow of itself. Mourinho winning the treble and fairly knocking out Barcelona in the semi's was a incredible achievement at the time.
But why do you keep bringing up the billion? You could see the improvement in performances, and the difference in the way they played in Guardiola's first season already. The results weren't incredible in the first season, but in the second season they had incredible results in the league.
Pellegrini, just as Guardiola, inherited a title winning squad, and just as Guardiola he spent a fortune during his first three seasons (which of course were his only three seasons). His results deteriorated, as did the performances. Pellegrini averaged around 77 points during his seasons at City and Pep averaged 92 points during his first three seasons. It's, by any measure, a ridiculous improvement in result which came as an effect of massively improved performances on the pitch.
About Klopp, yes, he has done well. But he hasn't had scrubs in his team, he's had a pretty teriffic team and they managed to struck gold multiple times in the transfer market (which of course is credit to Klopp and Liverpool). He's a brilliant manager as well, and one of the very best working today (perhaps the second best). No doubt about it.
+ MG
Despite the change of football landscape we also had academy players starting in 2008 when we won the CL.
And if I was a betting man I would bet that the next time we win it we will also have at least more than 0 academy players starting. Even Chelsea only 2 years ago had Mount and James starting their CL final.
I also know if we had a player of Foden’s quality he would have been a regular starter.
Overall I find it very weird that despite your huge investment in your youth infrastructure and despite “undeniably the best academy in the country” City managed to drop their only academy player who had managed to break through properly.
Both are different managers, suited for different kind of teams. While Klopp is great at building up sides and raising them from falling to win some trophies, Pep is a winning machine you hire to dominate and win every thing.
No the point is that spending money isn't everything, and that other PL clubs have ton of money to spend like United and Chelsea. It's their fault they feck it up while City don't. The competition isn't uneven as you're making it out to be.
Right, so that's the boardrooms, if you want me to say City's structure is incredible then yeah it is. It doesn't change that Pep has a much better squad to work with
If Jose had the same career path as him after leaving Madrid, he'd be successful as well. Jose is a bit of masochist while Pep is a perfectionist that halaled everything as long as he keeps his pristine records.
Its hard to say as they have never swapped places, in terms of similar jobs. I think Klopp relishes the romantic challenge, but he's never been in the position of Guardiola either so its really hard to compare. Maybe they would both fail or be a raging succes if they swapped but its too late to find out.
Wow, I think that's completely clueless.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to why Guardiola's methods shouldn't work with worse players.
I don't know, but they didn't work at city till he spent 500m
They finished with +12 points and +15 xPTS. In his first season. I'm sorry but you can't be serious.
I think the perennial question is, could Pep do everything he has without a club being groomed for his appointment, without financial backing much
greater than his rivals etc. I dont think he could outperform some of the other greats. He doesnt seem like the type. He loses his shit even when he's competing on a fairly equal standing, but its because of his incredible start to his career he can choose between the best options for immediate and long term succes. Pep should be compared to Zidane rather than any other manager because their beginnings in management and success are so similar.
greater than his rivals etc. I dont think he could outperform some of the other greats. He doesnt seem like the type. He loses his shit even when he's competing on a fairly equal standing, but its because of his incredible start to his career he can choose between the best options for immediate and long term succes. Pep should be compared to Zidane rather than any other manager because their beginnings in management and success are so similar.
Guardiola must be the luckiest manager in the world to somehow never get himself a bad boardroom in 15 years. What are the odds?
Pep's a Pep Guardiola is my idol.
That's all.
That's all.
He did that at Barcelona and won every title in his first season.
Well apart from Barcelona
When Pep arrived in the PL, Mourinho also rocked up at the same time. It was billed as a repeat of the Pep v Mourinho rivalry, Man Utd v Man City. They were both given similar amounts to spend in their first couple of seasons, and similar autonomy and trust. Pep eventually went to stay on for 7+ seasons, create a dominating stye of football, and win the treble. Mourinho was sacked.
The reason why Pep was able to stay longer was because in his 2nd season, he absolutely pulled clear of every coach in the land not only with an incredible never before seen points haul, but with an absolutely domineering style of football. A style which everyone, Mourinho included, knew would be incredibly difficult to surpass.
Had Mourinho been capable of doing the things Pep did with the same amount of money, he would still be managing Man Utd today. But he wasn't, and most coaches aren't. That's the genius behind Pep, and why he was able to stay for so long at City and get enough time, trust, and resources to eventually lead them to the very top of European football. That ability is what puts Pep in the conversation as the GOAT manager, and it''s that style of play and principles of coaching that has permeated English football and transformed the way football is played and coached across Europe.
Whether or not he's the absolute greatest manager is impossible to say for a man still in the middle of his management career, but to do what he's done is not easily replicable. The only other coach in recent times to have done similar, although to a much lesser degree and with much lesser achievements, is Klopp.
The reason why Pep was able to stay longer was because in his 2nd season, he absolutely pulled clear of every coach in the land not only with an incredible never before seen points haul, but with an absolutely domineering style of football. A style which everyone, Mourinho included, knew would be incredibly difficult to surpass.
Had Mourinho been capable of doing the things Pep did with the same amount of money, he would still be managing Man Utd today. But he wasn't, and most coaches aren't. That's the genius behind Pep, and why he was able to stay for so long at City and get enough time, trust, and resources to eventually lead them to the very top of European football. That ability is what puts Pep in the conversation as the GOAT manager, and it''s that style of play and principles of coaching that has permeated English football and transformed the way football is played and coached across Europe.
Whether or not he's the absolute greatest manager is impossible to say for a man still in the middle of his management career, but to do what he's done is not easily replicable. The only other coach in recent times to have done similar, although to a much lesser degree and with much lesser achievements, is Klopp.
Foden who's been with us since he was 8 played a big part in setting up Rodri's goal. He was unlucky not to start but lost his place when he got appendicitis and Bernardo had been superb in the RW position Phil had previously occupied.
He's got 5 PL medals as well as his CL and other honours at 22. Plenty of time to add to it.
Lewis may well be an important player in the future. He kept Kyle Walker out of the team for a while and is only 18. Cole Palmer has had a decent number of appearances but unfortunately has not made the best of them so far.
We will use Academy or young bought in players but only if they deserve it.
Who would you have dropped from our starting XI to accommodate them last week?
Many managers have won stuff one season and gone into hiding. I know there is a tendency to savour the experience of that underdog story as long as possible but if you base your judgements on those one off events, you will very easily enthrone “flukism” because the other failures of the same manager wouldn’t be in your consideration when judging.
I don’t know how you rate Conte’s first foray into the premier league when he beat Pep and Klopp to the league but my guess is that you must rate that win very highly. Also I’m curious to know what you think about Klopp’s current position on the table - 5th below Arsenal. You don’t seem to mention these bits. Almost like if he is able to win one season every other consideration doesn’t count.
Well then ask any other manager to seek out a team of home grown talents along with a handful of a talented bunch to create a team as dominant as the one that Pep managed if it was that easy.
But thats the thing though 250 million for transfers for the upcoming season is not a big advantage in todays football. The real advantage is how are they spend and how the new players fit in your system. Pep, although not perfect is a true Master at that. Here is where he is better than Klopp, Mourinho and all the other mentioned managers. Add to that his unique style of play and his ability to elevate it and turn his teams into winning machine and there you go - this is why he is the best manager in the world football today. Simple really.
Right, after spending 200m. It still wasn't close to his style of play that works with world class players in every position. He took over from pelligrini who I'm not suggesting is close to guardiola.
Nobody would ever deny that money is important. The issue is exaggerating what money can actually get you.
What City did in their early years of the new ownership is more "unfair" than anything they did under Guardiola. They signed players from clubs that were in better shape than them, players that most likely would not have moved to a club of City's stature. They signed guys who were playing at Real Madrid, Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Inter. They did that by paying them lots of money and promising them future success with the huge resources the club had at its disposal.
What have they done under Guardiola? For the most part, what they've done is sign players plying their trade at clubs one or two levels below Manchester City.
What City did in their early years of the new ownership is more "unfair" than anything they did under Guardiola. They signed players from clubs that were in better shape than them, players that most likely would not have moved to a club of City's stature. They signed guys who were playing at Real Madrid, Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Inter. They did that by paying them lots of money and promising them future success with the huge resources the club had at its disposal.
What have they done under Guardiola? For the most part, what they've done is sign players plying their trade at clubs one or two levels below Manchester City.
Because the style of football is incredibliy difficult to pull off without elite players in every position. You need excellent passers, dribblers and defenders for it to work. You also need a lot of dirty "tactical fouls" but this is a different subject. Or you end up conceding very simple goals due to the acres of space you leave at the back, as shown in his many CL exits to inferior opposition.
I'm not sure if people have short memories or what, but the CL semifinalists in 2004 were Porto, Monaco, Deportivo la Coruña, and Chelsea pre-Mourinho. It was the flukiest of all Champions League seasons in the 21st century, a freak combination of events that ensured there would be an unusual winner.
In fact Porto were the least weird winner of those four. They were previous European Cup winners and had won their domestic league many, many times.
What a load of nonsense.
The squad was in open revolt when Mancini was binned. He would have had to sell and replace about 9 players at the end of 2013 to get a team that would play for him.
If it wasn't for the 93:20 moment he would have gone at the end of the previous season.
But this is the point. Unless Foden / another academy talent is the best player in the world by this logic he will have no chance as City will just find someone slightly better or more experienced and pay whatever it takes to get him.
This topic started because someone posted the combined treble winning team which had 4 United academy players. Apart from them the argument you have in favour of Foden (x PL medals, CL medal, etc.) applies to some others as well for example Nicky Butt or Phil Neville. But like Foden they were not in the combined team, understandably.
I mean United could have also tried everything to get Nedved or Zidane and could have dropped a couple of (almost) as good academy players instead and then asked who would you have dropped for Zidane?
But I can only comment on what actually happened which is that your great academy talent Foden just played a side role last season. And he is similarly talented to Giggs/Scholes/Beckham and way more talented than G. Neville (the 4 players who were in the combined team). If he was of Darren Fletcher’s level we wouldn’t even be talking about him.
At the end we have been hearing for at least a decade about City’s incredible academy and indeed they are dominating at youth level. This however makes the end result even more damning. Basically it means if you want to start as an academy kid you need to be better than Foden. And even then we will most likely find someone who we like more.
The issue, the debate, is what constitutes an elite player.
This is easy to understand if we are talking about Barcelona. They had a number of players that people consider the best of their generation if not ever at their positions: Messi, Xavi, Iniesta. Unique talents. Literally irreplaceable.
The conversation is trickier when it comes to Manchester City because a lot of us don't believe they have that. Their players are not unique and none are obviously 'the best in the world at their position.' Their players are replaceable and they have, in fact, been replaced, sometimes twice over.
The players are 'very good' and maybe a few are 'great' but then, that's not special. Almost any team that won anything big had 'very good' and 'great' players.
Last edited:
People still arguing about Pep credentials 
.
With all his 'tainted' regimes in Barcelona, Munich and City not withstanding Pep is a elite manager.
Probably a quarter level below Ferguson, but he's not so behind Ferguson for sure.
People should also remember, Ferguson reign was also under questionable referee biasness.
Remember from 1993 - 2004, a 11 year period, United conceded only 3 penalties at Old Trafford. 3 penalties only. To many that is 100% referee bias to United.
In short, when you achieve great things even in real life jealousness, envy and entitlement will come up from other people.
We should cross our fingers Pep/his team is sanctioned, practically sanctioned, not mere charges then all his legacy will be truly tainted till then it looks like bunch of bitter United fans pulling Pep down.
.With all his 'tainted' regimes in Barcelona, Munich and City not withstanding Pep is a elite manager.
Probably a quarter level below Ferguson, but he's not so behind Ferguson for sure.
People should also remember, Ferguson reign was also under questionable referee biasness.
Remember from 1993 - 2004, a 11 year period, United conceded only 3 penalties at Old Trafford. 3 penalties only. To many that is 100% referee bias to United.
In short, when you achieve great things even in real life jealousness, envy and entitlement will come up from other people.
We should cross our fingers Pep/his team is sanctioned, practically sanctioned, not mere charges then all his legacy will be truly tainted till then it looks like bunch of bitter United fans pulling Pep down.
What they've done since pep took over is they've spent a billion pounds and they've spent it well. They have good scouts and a great backroom, this doesn't get pep extra credit. Pep gets credit for what he does with the players hehas and I don't feel that he's done anything with these players that no other manager could ever do. I do feel that klopp, someone and mourinho have all done things with their sides that pep could not have done
Except that they are yet to win with their teams as consistently as Pep has despite having abundance of wealth and talent sometimes - for Mourinho. Well I do not know the “someone” you are referring to but Klopp is yet to also prove that he can win where he is not allowed all the time in the world to build his dream team. So there’s that.
Klopp beat Bayern to 2 German leagues and took dortmund to a champions league final. He took Liverpool to a champions league final in his 2nd full seaosn and took them to 97 points and a champions league win in his 3rd full season having spent far less than pep and inheriting a side in far worse condition
Could you elaborate on that?
Well he wasn't managing to reach the same 90 point plus seasons that have been pretty commonplace, he wasn't tterly dominant the way his sides often are, they didn't roll over every team in their path.